Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
06-29-2009, 06:41 PM | #51 | |||||||||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You write too verbosely, freetrader, as if you are trying to convince yourself. You're not convincing anyone else. |
|||||||||
06-29-2009, 08:54 PM | #52 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: southwest
Posts: 806
|
Less plausible vs. more plausible
spamandham
Quote:
Yes, as a generalization, that sounds correct. But there are patterns to such stories. When a particular case goes against the normal patterns, the generalization may not apply. Also, some stories of weird events or miracles or paranormal experiences may be true, even though most other such stories are fictional. One pattern is that reputed miracle-workers always enjoyed a long public career of displaying their talent before audiences and accumulating a fan base and a reputation which became publicized. It is unique for a reputed miracle-worker to have only a short public career (less than 5 years) and yet to end up being at or near the top of the list of reputed miracle-workers. When this happens, there is more reason to believe the reported acts really took place. Compare Jesus of Galilee to Edgar Cayce for example. Since there are so many stories about Cayce and such a wide variety of testimonies, one might consider the possibility that he really did have some power to heal, perhaps some of it lying outside the boundaries of current known science. Nevertheless, in such a case, we know that his vast reputation which he built up over a lifetime has a drawing appeal that can cause fictional stories to be added. So we're entitled to be skeptical when someone claims they were healed by him. It could be just a psychic element based on their knowledge of the famous healer and their strong belief that he had power to heal them, and this belief could have had an impact on their mental process which led to an improvement in their health. Also the patient in some cases is just being dishonest and is engaging in wishful thinking, based on the healer's impressive reputation. Plus there can be fictional stories that the common masses are ready to believe because of the healer's already-established reputation, and these stories can be published and bring profits to the publishers. Telling people what they want to hear is always a profitable business. So the widespread reputaton of the famous healer should make us suspicious of the miracle stories that accumulate around him. But Jesus of Galilee did not have the advantage of being able to develop a long illustrious career during which to build up a wide reputation as a healer. Obviously today you could say he has that reputation, but not back in 30 AD. And with his career cut short, what happened to further his reputation and finally cause him to become arguably the world's foremost reputed healer? So, since the case of Jesus goes contrary to the norm of reputed healers, there is less reason to believe fictional stories accumulated around his name, the way they did around the name of Edgar Cayce and other reputed healers. Quote:
Quote:
And so you're incorrect to say those not eyewitnesses would be unimpressed or think there was nothing amazing. The persistence of the eyewitnesses would surely have an impact on them and persuade many of them, and this would create the extra energy that caused the reports to spread and the new movement to grow rapidly. So again, if those miracle stories are essentially true, i.e., there were actual miracle acts done by Jesus which then were reported by word-of-mouth, this would explain the unprecedented phenomenon we have of a widely-reputed miracle-worker (widely-reputed 100 or 200 years later) but whose public career was so short and who was missed by the mainline historians, and further who became made into a god even by people of an entirely alien culture who had no need to adopt this alien barbarian into their lives and make a savior out of him, or let someone else spoon-feed such a savior figure to them. Further, the hypothesis that he really did the miracle acts provides us an explanation why the promoters of the new religion chose the Jesus figure for their god instead of someone of wider repute and higher standing. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However, there's no apparent motive for why these organizers went to all this trouble, since there's no profit in it for them. Perhaps they were all wise and saw a need for some social cohesion that the new cult would bring, and they somehow figured out that only an obscure unknown figure with minimum credentials would serve the need. How all these creators of the new religion were able to come together in one place to thrash out the program is a mystery. A better explanation is simply that Jesus actually did the miracle acts, and so he was made the hero of the new religion because he was an obvious choice -- there was no other comparable choice, no need for a convention to squabble over who to choose, and so the choice took place spontaneously without any "conspiracy" to enthrone the Galilean. Meanwhile, the alternative explanation of the convention of so many different strident factions to put the program together would seem to have been an even greater miracle and thus less to be believed. Quote:
But I'm still waiting to hear the plausible "natural" explanation. And there is this further consideration: when there are several plausible explanations, there is nothing wrong with "preferring" one you like better, in other words, saying "I hope this is the correct explanation" even though it has doubtful elements in it. An explanation containing miracle acts has to be given a lower probability because of that, all else being equal, and even if there are other explanations of equal plausibility, it is fair to say "I don't know for sure, these are all reasonable possibilities, and I hope the truth is this explanation rather than that one." And it is wrong to "prefer" an explanation which lies below a certain level of probability or plausibility, even though it is appealing. Defining that lower threshold level is difficult. But in the extreme, if one explanation is 90% probable and another only 1 or 2% probable, then one must choose the 90% probable explanation, even if it is far less attractive. But if the difference is a 50% probable explanation vs. a 40% probable explanation, and the 40% one is more appealing, then there is nothing wrong with choosing the 40% probable explanation and saying, "I don't know which is the truth, but I think this one is a reasonable possibility and I hope it's true," possibly to the point of even acting on that explanation in some cases, even though you know the other explanation has slightly higher probability. The explanation I have offered, though it contains the "supernatural" element, still is more plausible than the other explanations, i.e., the only implausibility of it is that it contains this element of the miracle acts, which admittedly adds an extra element of doubt, but there should be more reason than this to reject it as long it is otherwise the most plausible explanation. Obviously no one knows for sure what happened way back then. |
||||||||
06-29-2009, 11:31 PM | #53 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Moderator -
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
2. Paul -- informed by his own psychosis -- decided that Jesus was some sort of dying and resurrecting god. There was nothing extraordinary about that. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
HJ was an apocalyptic prophet who gained a following by teaching that the "Son of Man" was going to come down from the sky -- just like it was predicted in the Book of Daniel -- to kick Roman ass and liberate the Jews. The he got himself crucified for trying bring about this expected apocalypse by enacting a symbolic attack on the Temple. After his death, his followers scattered. A few months or years later, one of them says he had a vision of Jesus that talked to him and told him he was coming back. A few more followers start claiming to have seen similar visions. The cult is revived wih a new expectation that Jesus himself was the Son of Man, and that he will be along directly to kick those Roman asses. One particular convert, prone to hallucinations and religious mania begins to believe that Jesus is appearing to him too, and giving him instructions. This new convert exports the cult to the Gentiles where he teaches that Jesus is a divine figure of salvation. Once among the Gentiles, the cult begins to accrete its miracle traditions, and the visionary experiences claimed by the disciples get transformed into a literal resurrection narrative, complete with an empty tomb that never existed in history. I don't know if this is true, but all of it is plausible, all of it is MUCH more plausible than magic, and it's only one of multiplicity of other hypotheses. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I could also mention wholly fictional characters like Moses and the patriarchs, or Krishna or the Chinese Lao Tse who grew from pure moonshine into figures that believers think were real people. Whatever the historical Jesus really was -- IF he was -- Paul's audience had no means of knowing or verifying anything about it. They had no choice but to take Paul at his word, so all your claims for any necessary miraculous -- or even "noteworthy" -- phenomena stemming from the original Jesus Palestinian Jesus cult(s) are completely fatuous. It wasn't necessary for a single claom Paul made to be true, it was only necessary for them to believe it was true. Paul himself wasn't even a witness, and even paul made no miraculous claims about Jesus other than the resurrection (an event which he does not even clearly state was physical as opposed to spiritual). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There is not even secondary testimony for anyone ever claiming, for instance, to have seen Jesus climb out of a grave. The first claim that Jesus was physically resurrected from a tomb does not occur until 50 years after the alleged event. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"They" didn't choose anything. Paul exported a preexisting cult and shined it up for the Gentiles. The fact that it was Jewish was not a weakness, it merely leant it an air of exotic and mystic allure, perhaps analogous to the way westerners might be drawn to Eastern traditions. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
06-30-2009, 02:06 AM | #54 |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
The boys and girls in the C14 laboratory might have something to say to the likes of your suppositions.
Citation (1): 290 CE +/- 60 years (gJudas) - estimated 4th century by the lab and archaeological team. Citation (2): 348 CE +/- 60 years (gThomas, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, TAOPATTA, etc, etc, Nag Hammadi). Where are the carbon dated historical Jesus "Goggles"? What century is this now? |
07-01-2009, 07:41 AM | #55 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
|
Quote:
I allow for human creativity, even (especially?) within the domain of religion. Do you not? Quote:
|
||
07-01-2009, 10:49 AM | #56 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
|
Quote:
But to your OP: I consider it unlikely that the original fame of Jesus proceeded from his performing healing and assorted miracles although I believe he used a controversial form of baptism which on occasion produced the phenomena of the "spirit" (Mk 1:8) with which his name became enmeshed after his death. I have been intrigued by the explicit denial that Jesus baptized by John (4:2) in the light of his transparent re-writing of an earlier text of a baptismal mishap in Lazarus. That Jesus became a healer only later, through gospel allegory, is best attested by Paul. Paul makes no references to the earthly Jesus, but to spritual gifts in his congregations, of which a healing ability is one (1 Cr 12:9, 30). It is through the (holy) spirit that one also testifies that Jesus Christ is the Lord (1 Cr 12:3). These associations then become the allegorical baseline to Jesus in the gospels. He himself performs miraculous cures, some of which (like restoring sight and hearing) are themselves metaphors for the attainment of spiritual faculties. Jesus transfers, as it were, the healing (and exorcism) gifts in commissioning his apostles. (Mk 3:14, Mt 10:8). The mighty works are done in Jesus' name (Mk 9:39). Jiri |
|
07-01-2009, 05:47 PM | #57 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: southwest
Posts: 806
|
Everyone did miracles but Jesus.
rfmwinnie:
Quote:
I'd like to see somone produce these examples, or just one. How about the best example you can find of a reputed faith healer or miracle worker of the period, who (reputedly) did a large number of healings which were witnessed (according to the accounts) and eventually recorded within 100 years and who was not a celebrity who had a long career in which to amass a large number of fans or disciples. It's easy to say "Oh there were tons of reputed faith-healers and wonder-workers who made it rain and resurrected dead bodies etc. etc." But when someone who says this has to provide particular examples of these practitioners, it turns out there's really very little there, and the few cases that do exist are always celebrities who made a long career of doing stunts before audiences and gaining a minor mention from an historian. But aside from that, a few of these might be real examples of people who had some unusual talent. One should not automatically dismiss all such stories as fictional. Perhaps in most cases there was a technique ("magic"?) involved which was done within the confines of the known science of the time. But perhaps also in some cases there were techniques mastered by a practitioner which were not explainable by the current science of the time, or maybe even by today's known science. There are odd cases of people who have an unusual ability which defies a known scientific explanation or defies "common sense" -- in some cases it is a skill or talent which generally requires years of training to develop, but in these odd cases a person seems to acquire it quickly (perhaps in early childhood) without any training. You can say that science will someday come to figure it out, after further research, but then that could also be said of any claims of miracle acts, such as healings outside current medical science. So is it true Jewish literature "abounds" in miracle events or rainmakers and sorcerors etc.? OK, a few obscure references, if you search quite a bit. But it doesn't mean much unless we look at particular examples of it -- just one or two examples would be enough -- and compare them to the case of Jesus to see if they really are in the same category, or if by comparison to him it is more probable or less probable that they had real power to perform such acts, and also, if they did have some real talent, what were the limits of their ability? -- just being able to perform one or two magic tricks, like we know magicians can do and can teach someone else, would not be a comparable case. Give a couple examples we can look at more closely. Quote:
Quote:
However, let's grant that there are a few vague references to persons who did magic tricks during the lifetime of the historian who wrote about it -- or only 20-30 years prior to the historian. This may be the case assuming the one reported lived a long career of performing before audiences or was a widely-known celebrity. But this does not apply in a case where the person's public life was only 1-3 years. I would like to know if there is a single other case of an historical figure who had such a short public life but who ended up becoming widely recognized as a performer of miracle cures. Quote:
|
||||
07-01-2009, 05:53 PM | #58 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
How about the explanation "someone made up the story?" It's much more likely than is the idea that Jesus violated the laws of nature for a short period of time.
|
07-01-2009, 06:36 PM | #59 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dancing
Posts: 9,940
|
Quote:
You seem to be under the impression that Christianity was spread by Jesus. Christianity was spread by Paul so you're looking in the wrong place for your miracles. Maybe Paul did miracles and that's why his letters make up half of the entire New Testament? As a matter of fact, name the first Christian who cites some "miracle stories" about Jesus. |
||
07-01-2009, 06:58 PM | #60 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 237
|
Dear freetrader,
You still have not explained to me why God would create such an obscure son? AND - expect everyone else to carry his water for him - i.e. create (or for your benefit: propagate) his story? Gregg |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|